Key issues for Randwick, Whiteshill and Ruscombe

Some 18 months ago I wrote a list of key issues for the ward (see below) - it was great to see how many of them have moved forward even since then - infact in my recent newsletter that I've delivered to all the ward in the last few weeks I revisited some of the 2006 pledges I made - see here - thanks to those who have been sending in comments or questions. Anyway rather than delete those key issues I thought I would post below....

Updated November 2011

This page gives a flavour of some of the local projects I have been working on over the last years as a local District Councillor. Please do let me know if you have any comments or thoughts. Many of these projects would not have been possible without the support and involvement of local people.

Now that I have been reelected I will be continuing to work on these and other issues.  See my thank you letter to local voters here.
 
1. Protection of the Ruscombe Valley, Randwick fields and other key unsuitable development sites. In 2004 local residents were angered by news that a landbanking company had bought three large fields in the Ruscombe Valley and sub-divided them into 184 house-size plots - see background here. The Ruscombe Valley Action Group (RVAG) was formed and we met regularly to campaign against any possible developments. There were a few successes like stopping the field being sub-divided by fences, getting the issue raised nationally and there was cross-party agreement that no development should take place.The District Council has been going through various consultations over the last years - see here my latest blog with news regarding the fields.

2. Whiteshill and Ruscombe Allotments. Well for over 2 years we worked on getting a site - it involved many meetings with police, planners, councils, landowners and more, along with many meetings to put together the lease, seek funds and agree terms etc - the lease was signed and the 20 small half plots were allocated and we have just seen the first year of production - see film of background and opening here. Names have also come forward in Randwick but we are still seeking a suitable site. If anyone is interested contact the Parish Clerk.

3. Ruscombe Brook: an end to sewage problems. Back in 2006 I was one of the founding members of the Ruscombe Brook Action Group which has met monthly and been involved locally in many projects including public seminars, talks at local schools, work with university students who were looking at water quality and testing the silt, direct action to clear the brook, an awareness raising leaflet (see photo) and negotiations to see reductions in sewage incidents - see 2007 article here, 2009 brief report here and see here Water 21 who were particularly helpful in helping us develop our understanding of the issues. We are delighted that there are now very few sewage incidents - and over the last months relining the sewer has started - at last!!! See here for other projects along the brook including the new culvert and grill to reduce flooding at Puckshole.

4. Better flood management. In 2009 I initiated the forming of the Stroud Valleys Water Forum which meets bi-monthly at Ebley Mill. It is a forum for the four local flood/brook action groups and individuals concerned with flooding. We have met with many key people including Severn Trent, the Environment Agency and our MPs to develop an holistic flood management approach - see here. Basically we need to put an end to those of us upstream dumping on those downstream. Too often the approach in the past to flooding would be larger culverts to get the water away quicker but this only sends the water on to those downstream often adding to flooding problems. My interests in water extend beyond just the brook group above and this forum - I am Stroud District Council's representative on the Customer Liaison Panel of Wessex Water - you can see the issues I raised by clicking here and scrolling down. You will also see on my blog considerable work around trying to promote Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems - see here.

5. Better waste management like food waste collection and alternatives to a large incinerator. A large incinerator would be a serious mistake - see here the alternatives. My blog carries reports of the considerable correspondence and actions to try and ensure that incineration is not part of the County's solutions to our waste. Paul Connetts talk  is a good place to start (see right a photo of Green party District councillors signing opposing an incinerator). I have also been working on ways to increase our recycling rates. Food waste collection is a priority: see Green proposals for AD here. I am disappointed that Stroud's lead in recycling has dropped significantly. We can and should be doing much more.

6. 20 mph in residential areas and transport issues. 20 mph cuts casualties, improves neighbourhoods and leads to more people feeling safer to walk and cycle. The County are reviewing their policy but appear reluctant to go for 20 mph in all residential areas like Portsmouth and an increasing number of other places. I am hoping we can change their minds. Working with the Parish Councils we have sought other traffic calming measures like the removal of the middle white line and hopefully gateways at the main entrances to the villages. The '20 is Plenty' scheme was part of the plan to move towards a mandatory limit. See lots re 20 mph on my blog here. I have also researched best practice in terms of traffic management and in 2005 wrote a well-received report entitled "Better Streets for Stroud District."  See also article in Resurgence that is a useful summary of the approach which is gaining credibility. I helped organise a seminar at the District Council to increase awareness of this important approach.

7. Improvements to public transport and cycling. I have taken a keen interest in transport issues like seeking improvements to cycling, better bus services, campaigning for the doubling of the rail line and helping lead a three year campaign to get a bus shelter.

8. Fuel poverty, energy security and climate change. I am passionate about these linked issues and frustrated that there is not more urgency. I have just chaired two inquiries at the District Council which made successful recommendations to tackle these issues. See here and here; these have also led to a ground-breaking Energy Strategy for the District Council which is set to be approved this month. It is only a small step although many were surprised to see the recommendations were accepted at all. I have also initiated and coordinated the hugely successful Eco Renovation Open Homes weekends to encourage people to take more energy efficiency and renewable measures. This is now in it's fourth year and has seen many hundreds of visits to local homes like the one pictured. Many people value the chance to talking to others about the options before embarking on an eco-renovation. See my report of the first year here. I also initiated the project to make Energy Monitors available in libraries to help people cut their energy use. I have also pushed measures within the District Council and have seen successes like the pool cover at Stratford Park Leisure Centre and ensuring sustainability is a key issue in any new leisure services contract. We need more urgency to tackling these issues - there are many opportunities. If for example the Council borrowed money to invest in renewables, we could pay back the loan with money saved from fuel costs. Such moves make economic and environmental sense, we just need the political will to make it happen! I am increasingly optimistic that we might develop a significant project locally.

9. Protecting our wildlife and environment. I have been involved in projects locally such as the local brook action group mentioned above, supporting the local Hedgehog Hospital, worked with a local badger group and helping develop the Stroud-based Global Bee Project to protect solitary bees - see for example here. I have opposed cuts to organisations like the Stroud Valleys Project that involve so many local people in important projects locally.

10. Other stuff!! As this blog will show I have been involved in many other projects and actions. Local projects that I'm hoping can go forward include a wood fuel project in Randwick woods, initiating a Potato Day for Stroud, improved Broadband services, expanding the use of the Stroud Pound, street parties and more apple juicing in a local orchard with hopes of setting up a community orchard.

I have also been involved in local actions regarding our public services like libraries, post offices and health services. Working for a charity that supports people with mental health problems and previous work as a Social Worker have made me acutely aware of the importance of local public services  - as I said in a letter to the press "Churchill, Gandhi and Truman have all said we can judge a society by how it treats its most vulnerable members." Issues of equality are crucial and I have supported many local groups and organised projects like flying the Rainbow flag on Ebley Mill on Gloucestershire's Gay Pride day.

My blog has lots more info like various petitions, the successful opposition to arts funding cuts, the campaign against Staverton Airport expanding or the attempts to stop another nuclear plant being built at Oldbury, plus more local stuff like seeking improvements to road gullies and grit bins, supporting locals regarding planning issues (some successful and some not so!) and larger planning issues locally like Tricorn House and Cashes Green Hospital site. Read my blog for more!

Action groups meet: Ruscombe Valley and Ruscombe Brook

Back on Wednesday 16th January we had a meeting of the Ruscombe Valley Action Group and the Ruscombe Brook Action Group at the Whiteshill and Ruscombe Village Hall. About 25 people attended with 9 apologies. The evening started with two presentations and then went to discussions/actions. Here's a summary based on the minutes I put together and looks at the possible threat to the Ruscombe Valley.....

1. Ruscombe Brook Action Group. Philip Booth opened with a brief history of RBAG dating back to 2005. He considered how the group formed in response to threats of development in the valley and a series of sewage incidents that led to the brook being polluted. Photos of sewage were available to see! Then looked at the many actions the group have taken including a number of clear ups of silt and rubbish, 4 conferences, talks to schools, walks along the length of the brook to consider biodiversity issues, exhibitions, consultation meetings re Hamwell Leaze and The Lake at The Lawns, support to other action groups to establish locally, MSc students on placement testing the brook and working to get a new £13,000 grill installed to reduce flooding at Puckshole. In addition there have been many consultation meetings with Severn Trent and others to improve the sewers. Various works have taken place over the years but it has only just been in the last months that the problem sewers have been relined in the Ruscombe valley and along the Randwick tributary.

For a look at the first two years see:
http://www.rbag.org.uk/2009/07/blog-coming-soon.html

2. Ruscombe Valley Action Group. Rebecca Charley outlined the history of RVAG; it is now almost 8 years since the land in the Ruscombe Valley was advertised for sale. Gladwish Land Management bought the Land and put it up for sale as 184 individual plots. The Ruscombe Valley Action Group was formed, with the objective of maintaining the fields as agricultural land. Much work was done to protect the fields, develop cross-party support for no development there and challenge the practice of landbanking.

Some of the history can be found at: http://ruscombegreen.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/landbanking

Philip then gave some more background to the threats to development on the fields over the years. Some of that can be found at the link above. We are now at the point where locally the immediate threat (in terms of the Local Plan) to development on Randwick fields has been removed. The Planning Advisory Panel at the District Council debated the latest update. See Core Strategy Consultation details at: http://www.stroud.gov.uk/democracy/meeting.asp?meet_id=1487&com_id=PAP

Those draft papers (164 pages) reported an update on the consultations re the threats locally:

Point 0.71 re the Stroud Valleys notes agreement that 300-800 new homes in the Stroud valleys was about the right level of development. Specifically it is noted:

By far, the most commonly raised reservations related to the Preferred Strategy’s suggestion that some ‘edge of settlement’ greenfield sites might be used to supplement the development of brownfield sites in the valley bottoms. The consultation document specifically identified land at Callowell Farm and Grange Fields as possible options (Concept Diagram 1.1iii): there was almost complete consensus (amongst those respondents who specifically mentioned these sites) that these proposals should be omitted from the Plan. However, a small number of respondents did concede that Grange Fields in particular was a relatively sustainable location, close to the town centre.

There was vigorous opposition to any possibility of developing other such sites (including Rodborough Fields, and several sites in the Slad Valley and the Ruscombe valley), none of which were specifically proposed in the consultation document.

Next steps as I understand: This document was to inform Members, the public and stakeholders about key findings from the Preferred Strategy consultation. It provides a summary of the responses and is not an exhaustive itemisation of all representations. The report will help now inform decisions on the policy choices and direction in preparing a “Pre-Submission” Local Plan document. The Pre-Submission document will then face consultations - the final Local Plan will be refined taking into account those representations and will then be submitted and subjected to examination by an independent Inspector. The Inspector will consider whether the Plan is ‘Sound’ and will indicate whether it may be formally adopted as the key document within Stroud’s Local Development Framework. It is hoped the allocations will be agreed by councillors in the Spring.

There has been huge opposition to any development in the Ruscombe Valley and indeed to Callowell and I am hopeful that councillors will take that into account when looking at the plan. However there is much negotiation and discussion as councillors have strong views about development sites. For example if the site at Eastington/West of Stonehouse or another proposed site did not go ahead that would put pressure on to look at all sites again.

Lastly Philip noted the worrying development in Cam. The inspector approved on 11th January a potentially 71 home development at what is called 'Land Opposite 6 Box Road, Cam'. This is worse than "bad news"! The inspector, wrongly in my view, dismissed the council's claims to have a five year housing supply - this is of grave concern as it means that if we don't have allocations in place very soon it wont be democratically elected representatives, but rather government inspectors making the decisions. Already it can be a battle to fight developments even where there is virtually unanimous opposition; the government's moves will only make this worse. It is also in my view, shows the mess the government has made of planning with the NPPF; even it's own inspectors are openly disagreeing on what the district's housing supply should be! It seems to be 20% higher or lower depending on which inspector you get.

Poss useful info -
Frequently asked questions: it is from last year but most info still correct in view of SDC: www.stroud.gov.uk/info/plan_strat/faqs.pdf
Planning Strategy: http://www.stroud.gov.uk/docs/planning/planning_strategy.asp#s=sectioncontent3&p=newconsult

We discussed actions and ways forward - and there will be another meeting 12th March in The Star - contact me for details.

Farmhill Lane: 'Investment Opportunity' for sale in Stroud?

Well it looks like the 'Gladwish' plots are up for sale again - two plots advertised at £17,475 and £19,575 - see here.

Photos: plots from Property website giving impression that site could be a great housing development on that slope and below a photo taken from Randwick across to the fields.

Nothing illegal here as they are clearly advertised as agricultural land with no planning permission. That is a lot of dosh for a quarter of an acre - locally we are seeing about £6,000 per acre ie those plots should be about £1,500 each. But the advert claims: "However, the vendor is of the opinion that it will command a high price in the event of a successful planning application."

Well of course - pretty well any land will do that - I have already had two people contacting me over the last year asking what to do with their plots that they had bought as they can't fence them and planning permission to them seems very unlikely. One plot holder has tried to grow vegetables but has seen their crops vandalised. There is huge opposition to any development on the site. When residents discovered in 2004 that the field had been sold to a landbanking company over a 100 filled a hall without any public notice going out (see other comments re landbanking by clicking on label below).

Since then the Ruscombe Valley Action Group has met and still keeps an eye on the fields - personally I see it as very sad indeed as the only winner seems to be the landbanking company. If any planning permission is sought there will be huge opposition - indeed there was cross-party support for not developing this site at the last election. So at the moment the land remains in a condition where it is getting worse - before it was grazed - that is much better for the land - but now it is at least it is cut but nettle areas are extending and the best use of the land is not being made - mind so are the badgers extending - well that's good news to stop any development!

What a pity that what many people locally are calling 'greed' of a few is blighting those fields in this Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Make views known on Ruscombe Valley

Nearly a 100 people turned out at Whiteshill Village Hall last week - many had heard that 60 sites listed in the consultation are in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) including up to 588 houses in the Ruscombe valley, 240 filling the hillside between Ruscombe and Randwick.

Photo: People leaving the meeting - I forgot to take one earlier!

See my blog here for more background to this threat to our valley.

As many know we currently are being consulted on some options for housing and employment in the District - this blog post covers the view of Whiteshill and Ruscombe Parish Chair below and some of the queries that have been raised about the sites.

I also again give links to the consultation on the seven Alternative Strategies - it is vital as many as possible participate before the 22nd March deadline - the Parish Council hope to produce some info soon for people to help them participate - this blog will hopefully let you know but far better you respond in your own words!

The Core Strategy will form the basis of a new set of planning policies that guide development for housing, jobs and community facilities - so it is critical! I must again stress this consultation is being carried out because of Government policy - see more below - and there is no way that all the sites listed will be chosen - many are clearly unsuitable - but we need to make clear that Ruscombe valley is unsuitable.

By 2026 the district needs to find 2,000 new homes and encourage a new generation of jobs. To tackle this, seven Alternative Strategies have been created. These strategies set out different ways of providing for future development i.e. what could go where. The council wants your views on which of the alternative strategies work best. None of these strategies are set in stone and the final choice maybe a mix of several stratagies.

A mini guide that briefly outlines the seven strategy options has been produced. The 'Your district, Your future' guide is available at all town and parish council offices as well as public libraries. Copies can also be found at the district council offices and Stroud Subscription Rooms. Alternatively the mini guide, along with the full questionnaire and consultation documents, can be downloaded at www.stroud.gov.uk/core

Comments can be submitted online or by post.

On this blog I have covered much about all this before - see here the comments about the key local sites made in October - the photo here shows some of the sites.

The Strategic Housing Land Availability section is where you can find details about the sites assessed for housing:
www.stroud.gov.uk/docs/localplan/housing_land.asp

Letter to press by Dr John Rogers

Some folks may have seen the letter by Whiteshill and Ruscombe Parish Council chair Dr John Rogers writing in the SNJ. He has given permission to copy it here:

Madam

your article on SDC's Core Strategy consultation only covers part of the process. After a strategy option has been selected the actual sites for development will be chosen. These will come from a list called the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). This list was draw up by some consultants and appears to include every site that has been rejected for development in recent years. This includes 60 sites in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) including up to 588 houses in the Ruscombe valley, 240 filling the hillside between Ruscombe and Randwick. It states that up to 1,518 houses could be built on two sites at the start of the Painswick valley and 251 house at the start of the Slad valley. A full list of the sites and map of their locations can be found at www.stroud.gov.uk/docs/localplan/housing_land.asp.

It is true that there are no specific plans to build on these sites at present, that will come after the strategy has been approved. If like me you are appalled that sites in the AONB are even being considered for building on please contact your District Councillor to get them to put pressure on the Planning Department to exclude all sites in the AONB and those with a high visual impact from the SHLAA.

Yours Sincerely Dr John Rogers

Re concerns regarding the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment January 2010

This was carried out by consultants and it does seem to have many mistakes. It is important these are highlighted. Here are some of the points already made:

Site 87 "Land behind Farmhill Lane". Although it is used for dog walking the site is in fact registered as agricultural land and is used for hay production not recreational as noted in the report. This site was purchased in 2004 by a landbanking company who subdivided it into over 150 lots which were sold separately so it is not owned by a single owner as stated in the Assessment. The "Accessibility Information" is also wrong, why "Stroud - Sainsbury" should be considered as a centre is not clear particularly as there are a number of shops and businesses in Cainscross and Ebley which are nearer to the site (this mistake is repeated for sites 121 and 65).

Here is a comment from the planner relating to the last points:

- Regarding the accessibility assessment of the site it appears that unfortunately Cainscross Co-op was missed off the consultants list of supermarkets which explains why Sainsbury’s was listed as being the closest retail/service centre to the site. The Co-op has now been included and the revised proforma will list the Co-op as the nearest centre to the site.

- In response to the information you have provided the principal use of the site will be changed on the site assessment from recreation to agriculture. Apologies for the incorrect classification.

- The ownership details for the site have now been amended. The site is now listed as having more than one owner and the availability assessment has also been changed. I agree that the assessment should have picked up on the fact that the site is in multiple ownership and apologise for that error. However, this wouldn’t actually change the overall view of the site’s potential. It is achievable, possibly suitable and possibly available. In terms of availability, the site was submitted by an interested party and there was nothing in the submission to suggest that the other site owners would categorically not wish the site to come forward. So the 2014 onwards assessment holds.

SHLAA is not a policy making document

I think it is also worth noting that the District Council have consistently said that the SHLAA is not a policy making document but that it provides one part of the evidence base in the preparation of the LDF and the Core Strategy in particular. This is reiterated in the main report itself. In that context, the SHLAA findings are just that … they are NOT recommendations. The SHLAA has been prepared in accord with government guidance.

Greenfield sites have to be considered in the SHLAA even if they are in the AONB. It is the policy making process that will determine which (if any) of the sites considered in the SHLAA come forward as allocations for housing eventually. The consultants have identified that, based on its AONB designation, it is questionable as to whether the site is suitable. In the actions, they make clear that one of the actions is to determine whether the AONB policy constraint can be lifted – this is a policy matter.

Regarding inclusion of sites within the AONB, Paragraph 21 of the SHLAA Guidance states that “particular types of land or areas may be excluded from the Assessment. Where this is the case, the reasons for doing so will need to be justified and agreed by the members of the partnership. Except for more clear-cut designations such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest, the scope of the Assessment should not be narrowed down by existing policies designed to constrain development, so that the local planning authority is in the best possible position when it comes to decide its strategy for delivering its housing objectives”.

Why we all need to respond to latest consultation

A new generation of planning policies which will set out the locations for housing, jobs and community facilities is being put together by Stroud District Council. That means we need to consider issues like whether we want housing in Ruscombe fields as proposed by a landbanking company? See some of the previous campaign blogs against that here. Or the last bits of green between Randwick and Cashes Green filled up with houses? Or whether we want more energy self-reliance across this District with more wind turbines sensitively sited?

Photos: views of Whiteshill and Randwick

These questions and more we need to consider - it would be wonderful if all local folk could respond to the simple survey that considers some of the issues addressed by new planning policies as the basis of a Core Strategy. This strategy will provide the framework for how the district will evolve over the next 15 years - we need to get it right!

The information provided by the public will be used to help draw up the Core Strategy which will then be voted on by the District Council. Then provided a Government Planning Inspector is happy that the correct procedure has been followed it will be approved. Once approved all planned development must contribute towards achieving the goals of the Core Strategy.

Locations for building new homes need to be identified; facilities that cater for the young and the old have to be provided and communities need to be kept active - these are all areas that the Core Strategy will consider. Take for example the Government plans that for over the next 20 years approximately 9000 new homes in the district have to be built. These homes must meet the needs of whole community whilst also causing minimal disruption to the natural environment. Real thought needs to given to find the best locations and to the facilities that will have to be built to support new communities.

We also need to bear in mind that more young people then ever are leaving rural areas to seek work and affordable accommodation. Coupled with an ageing population the sustainability of our villages is declining. Is the solution to extend our villages with more jobs and homes or to improve the transport links to urban areas?

Multi-use games areas have been built like the one in Cashes Green to promote active play and overall health. These sites can also be used by adults. Should more outside public spaces be redeveloped as multi-use areas or should there be a focus on creating indoor areas for activities? Or what about more natural play areas that focus on boulders, trees, ditches, mounds etc rather than standardised play equipment - see my letter here and here.

In Stroud town many plans have been made and are in the process of going forward as part of their Public Realm Strategy. This is intended to make environmental improvements and make the town more attractive to residents, workers and visitors. What improvements to our villages are necessary? And what of public transport? How will the transport needs of an ageing population be met? With rising fuel prices and the pressure to reduce CO2 emissions what is the solution to cutting car usage?

SDC with Gloucestershire County Council has supported successful and innovative bus services, such as the Wotton Hopper in and around Wotton-under-Edge, and Village Link, a demand-responsive bus service operating in Dursley area. Should SDC continue to invest in these initiatives, expand them or are there other improvements to bus services better?

There is lots more. Here is my quote sent in for the Parish magazine, The WaRbler: Philip Booth, Whiteshill and Ruscombe's District councillor said: "It is great our Parish Council are publicising this 'Core Strategy'. It may sound boring but it plays a critical role in how we wish to see the area developed in the future. Do residents want to continue to oppose homes being developed in the Ruscombe Valley fields? How do we protect the environment for future generations? Do we want to see more investment in say energy efficiency schemes that cut our bills and CO2 emissions? It is important that residents participate in this genuine consultation to find the best ways forward for the District."

20 key areas that will shape the future of our distinct - its down to you

• Improving the image of the District.
• Providing job opportunities across the District.
• Achieving a better transport system to help reduce CO2 emissions.
• How can we improve the vitality and viability of our town centres.
• How can we develop the tourist potential of the District.
• Supporting and capitalising on the District's artistic and cultural assets.
• Meeting the District's identified future housing needs.
• Maintaining and improving the sustainability of our villages.
• Improving provision of facilities for young people.
• Meeting the needs of an increasingly elderly population.
• Meeting the District's need for sports facilities.
• Achieving social inclusion and active communities, where community initiatives are the norm.
• Conserving and enhancing Stroud District's countryside and biodiversity.
• Protecting and enhancing our historic environment.
• Contributing to the provision of renewable and low carbon energy generation in the District.
• Minimising waste generation and increasing recycling.
• Ensuring that the Cotswold Canals restoration plays a positive role in the District.
• Provide resilience to flood risk.
• Meeting the District's need for open and green spaces.
• Which are the most important issues for the Core Strategy to focus on.

The deadline for feedback is Friday 1st May. The questionnaire is available online at www.stroud.gov.uk/core or by post: Core Strategy, Stroud District Council, Ebley Mill, Stroud, GL5 4UB. For further information call 01453 754092.

Don't fall for land sale in Ruscombe Valley, Stroud?

It was interesting to see that land in the Ruscombe Valley (see fields left and further down valley below) is still being sold for outrageous prices - I suspect they are getting desperate as all political parties have said no to development here - it's AONB - and there is such a strong action group (click 'Label' below for more on the Ruscombe Valley Action Group) - indeed at the first meeting with no notice over 100 local residents turned out. I really can't see this land being developed - it can't even be fenced as an Article 4 was put on it so there is little that it could be used for...

See the advert here. They want offers in excess of £17,500 and describe it as: "This piece of land is designated as agricultural and therefore is being sold with no planning permission. However, the vendor is of the opinion that it will command a high price in the event of a successful planning application. The plot is 0.25 acres. It would be large enough for a detached dwelling with gardens with the relevant and successful planning permission." And is this another advert here?

Is anyone still falling for that? Of course it would be a high price if it had planning - in my view this is a scam - not on the same level as I have reported on this blog re other companies who are landbanking - but nevertheless a scam - indeed on a website called Property Scam you can still read about the Ruscombe valley - see here for lots of reasons why not to buy.

Good news on land banking

A landbanking company that took £69 million from 4,500 investors without meeting promises of development is to be shut by the High Court, the Financial Services Authority says.

Photo: Ruscombe fields now owned by up to 180 different owners

UKLI had sold plots of land to investors claiming that it could get planning permission for the land, which they could then sell on to developers for a huge profit. But none of the properties ever achieved planning approval. The FSA charged that UKLI operated an illegal collective investment scheme and denied its investors protection for their money. See report here - and here the Guardian's comment.

This is great news to see the clamp down on land banking companies. However the story is different for Ruscombe - here the company Gladwish have divided the three fields in Ruscombe into 180 or so plots and sold them - development will never go-ahead on those fields - well extreemly unlikely especially with our Ruscombe Valley Action Group. It seems though at the moment there is not any evidence that Gladwish have said these fields are for development ie no promises. It is clear what we still need is action to also end practices like Gladwish dividing up our fields in such a way....See background re campaign in Ruscombe here and by clicking on label below there is lots more plus CPRE's view here.

Scrutiny x2, snow, ward newsletter plus other bits

Apols - I haven't been keeping blog up-to-date with Council and other stuff this week - here is an attempt to do a quick roundup with some of the meetings I've been to this week plus other news bits...

Snow - some 40 cars were still left up near Edge - abandoned last night after the snow came down - I love it - well when I don't have to get anywhere - and managed to even have a go sledging - very exciting! Got the sledge from a neighbours skip when they emigrated - it is brilliant despite not loads of snow (see photo)! However it meant I was already exhaused when it came to...

Ward newsletter delivery - I started delivery in Westrip and bits of Randwick of a ward newsletter - it takes some 16 hours to deliver to the whole ward - I managed a couple of hours today - and wow was it gorgeous - beautiful winter wonderland - the other parts of the ward will have to wait a little but if you want a pdf version let me know and I can send one.

I wanted to write lots more but ended up rather throwing it together to meet printers deadline and also get it out with the Green party's newspaper - 'Green Around Stroud' - a couple of bits in there also about me but wanted to add more to explain in the section why I joined the Greens...anyhow perhaps more of that in another blog....

Floods - some 35mm of rain and trains stopped, roads flooded and reports of homes getting hit again - locally in the ward no reports of sewage in the brook after the heavy rains - shows the work Severn Trent have done is working at the moment - but Puckshole Lane was a river again - water over welly height - luckily no cars parked there....meanwhile some 700 homes in Bisley, Painswick, Amberley and more have been without power today due to weather.

....plus I've reported the large tree lying across the Pipebridge over Ruscombe brook and a fence - it needs moving before too long otherwise it could damage the pipe or fence seriously.

Grit bins - most seem to have been OK and in action locally - although one in Bread Street seems to have disappeared (see photo)? I am also looking to get improvements to these ugly plastic barrels that are so tempting to vandals to tip over.

Planning applications - this ward doesn't get so many contentious applications - other than of course the Ruscombe fields (click on landbanking label below) - I often have contact with various householders regarding applications - and not being on the Development Control Committee any longer I am able to get more involved - infact have been looking at three local applications recently - and I have to say I was very disappointed that residents objections were over-ruled last week regarding the proposed three-storey property off Upper Kitesnest Road - it is now set to go ahead.

Assault near Woodcutters Arms in Whiteshill - we are fortunate in this ward to have a low crime rate - there has recently been some damage to cars - this incident is out of the ordinary - it occurred 1.48am on New Year's Day - a 24year old was left with facial injuries - apparently there was a witness who is being urged to come forward although an arrest has already been made. Call Gloucestershire Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111 quoting incident number 167 of January 1st or ask to speak to an officer at Stroud Police Station.

Stroud Green party meeting - in Star Anise cafe on Wednesday night (I like the refit they have just done) and about 25 of us went through the monthly agenda - covering elections coming up in May - many candidates now selected and voted on - thankfully my seat is not up for another two years - anyhow we also looked at events, policies and lots more - would love to cover stuff here but a look at the Glos Green party website is a good way to see the issues we are looking at - County waste is a big issue (I'm helping draft a response at moment) and the Governments approval of nukes (see last blog entry) - mind lots of stuff coming up like Cheltenham Boroughs likely support for Staverton Airports expansion - Lib Dems are supporting it despite a national policy of no airport expansions - it makes no sense to me - see my letter already noted on this blog here. The Regional Spatial Strategy is out and needs a response - it has got lots of nonsense in it - plus on a more positive note is Stroud's Sustainable Communities consultation - here is a real chance to influence policy - again I'll be writing more in coming weeks.

Scrutiny meetings - Tuesday night three hours plus spent at Ebley Mill in the evening for a Scrutiny meeting - then nearly four hours on Thursday night for another Scrutiny - you can watch them on the Council website webcast system and minutes will soon be in the web - but to give a flavour here are some issues raised...the first meeting looked mainly at the budget - I enclose as an example a question from Cllr Martin Whiteside - the answer was mostly reassuring but for the roll-out of the Stanleys waste trial - I've covered on blog previously this trial and the need to expand it across the District - at last that looks set to happen - however it would appear that costings are still not clear! This is worrying.

The second scrutiny meeting looked at it in more details and also made a couple of important recommendations - firstly that the District should note the success of the trial blah blah - basically saying if we can reach such good recycling targets in such a short time we do not need to go for a monster incinerator which it would appear the County want - scroll down here previous blogs for more on this - especially letter on 10th December 2007. Secondly we've called on a Scrutiny committee to invite supermarket bosses to look at how they can cut packaging - an issue I have been on about for ages - previously I have been told that the cOuncil is doing that but in answer to several of my questions it became apparent that they have only spoken to the small Coop in relation to the Stanleys trial.

Another issue we looked at was Stratford Park leisure centre - customer numbers are up and I have seen an improvement in recent months - still needs work - one of the frustrations is to get them to do more re energy efficiency - because they only have a three year contract there is no incentive - Dursley pool in contrast is Council owned and now has a pool cover - why not Stroud - the most I got from my questioning was an agreement of a report to consider green measures. Anyhow I am more than happy to talk more if anyone is particularly interested or has thoughts on these issues or others....enough now - have had several other meetings with officers but more of that in future blogs - time for something to eat now!!

Green party question from Cllr Martin Whiteside: Whether the funds allocated are sufficient to meet all the 2008/09 outcomes committed to in the SDC Environmental Strategy (including pro-rata targets if the outcome commitment is beyond 2008/09)?

Here is the answer given: Sufficient resources have been set aside to deliver the ‘immediate priority actions’ set out on pages 4, 7, 9, 12 and 13 of the Strategy. Any variations in delivery timescales will be set out in the Corporate Delivery Plan 9-month update being reported to Cabinet on January 31. In terms of the Council’s performance targets (main outcomes) there are 8 set out in the Strategy. It should also be noted that there are 8 ‘Community Aspiration’ targets which are not dealt with here as they are subject to long-term monitoring. The following summarises current progress in terms of the Council’s performance targets. Sufficient resources are currently available in each case and any potential risks in terms of a requirement for significant additional resources in the future are identified.

- (Page 5) By 2010 all households in the District will have a convenient and easy-to-use collection services, enabling them to recycle and compost at least 70% of their rubbish. The exact resource needs and timescales for implementation will be dependent on the outcomes from the evaluation of the Stanley’s Waste Trial (due to take place in the summer of 08) and discussions concerning the Joint Municipal Waste Strategy. The financial implications will need to be clarified during the winter 2008/08 budget cycle. It should be noted that an initial £525k was set aside in last years budget for this purpose.

- (Page 8) To reduce carbon dioxide emissions from the council’s direct operations (electricity, heating and transport) by a minimum of 3% per annum. The Council is currently developing a carbon footprint. The estimated net carbon dioxide emissions for 2006/07 are set out below and have been calculated using current DEFRA guidance. All figures are subject to confirmation.

Ruscombe field plots still being sold?

I was sent an email this week from someone wanting to find out more regarding the fields at Ruscombe - they included plans and several photos including this one here. They were interested in a plot on the site and whether it would be a 'good investment' - I wont comment on that but I know the community will fight tooth and nail to ensure no houses are built on this land, that there is cross-party support against any development on those fields, that the Local Plan (which we have to adhere to) makes clear no development for this site, that the fields are in an AONB.....I could go on - anyhow I have left a message for this person if they want to talk more about my views on this.

It is worrying that land is still being marketed in this way - while perfectly legal it is clearly wrong in my view on many counts. The Ruscombe Valley Action Group will continue to to support moves to stop the practice of landbanking.

See more re landbanking on this blog here - and our action group's statement on the Parish website here.

Ruscombe action group continues to tackle landbanking

The Ruscombe Valley Action Group (RVAG) hadn't met for 6 months as there has not been any key issues. However last night we met at the Whiteshill Village Hall to review where we were at - the meeting was wonderfully short - out and home in almost under the hour.

Photos: Fields being cut yesterday - likely to be for silage this early

Progress nationally against landbanking has been slow - however Parish councillor Rebecca Charley is still in conversations with our local MP about possibly doing a presentation to MPs re the issue - CPRE also have launched a national campaign since we last met officially (see my blog on 30th December 2006) - and we are still in conversations with a Lib-Dem MP over possible legislation.

Photo: Whiteshill Village Hall yesterday before meeting

Locally there is little we can do other than keep a close eye on the fields - we are however now considering to accept the land back from Gladwish for the community - would he do this?? Surely he can have little use for remaining plots - the plots will not get planning permission in the foreseable future and surely no one will be silly enough to purshase any further plots?? And if they did what developer would want to deal with 180 different plot owners? Anyhow the next Parish Council meeting will look at this.

The issue for us is about maintenance - sadly the contract is not for grazing (this is better for land) - however at least it is being cut - in fact it was started yesterday.

Lastly we are looking at repeating last years walk along the footpaths - again the Parish Council will look at this next week - I'm hoping we can either end in the Star or perhaps a glass of wine and a Parish meeting??

Cuckold's brook, drains, kerbs and more

Heres some other bits of very local news:

Whiteshill Kerbs dropped: Whiteshill kerbs have been dropped in several places to improve access for wheel and push chairs. The Parish had set up a meeting to discuss the exact location of the kerbs to be dropped - it was therefore with some surprise that a week before that meeting John Rogers, the Parish Chair and myself who were out looking at something elsestumbled across Highway contractors already at work!!! I do sometimes wonder....and have to question the location of some of the drops....

Bread Street drain cleared: at last after some months we have got the drain sorted - see 28th September blog - the blockage had led to the neighbours house being flooded on several occasions - the contractors ended up being there for 3 days as the whole pipe was completely blocked - they've done much root cutting and had to dismantle and rebuild a cotswold stone wall in one place. Now we need some rain to test it!

Litter in alleyway: I had a couple of reports re litter but would like to make a plea for people to report to SDC direct - you can use the online service at:
www.stroud.gov.uk/machinery/reportit.asp?did=reportit

Plea for old photos of Whiteshill: we are looking for photos of the Main Road in particular as part of exploring how to improve road safety along there - returing villages to beingvillages has shown in other areas to work well.

Cuckold's brook: is this really the name of the Lower part of Ruscombe brook (see photo)? A Randwick councillor tells me it is so and also is the name of the Randwick Tributary - a check with online history confirms that is indeed the name for the bottom section! Any more thoughts on name of the Randwick bit?? History online write:

"The smaller, western division of the parish, divided from the eastern by a long southern arm of Painswick parish, was known as Paganhill tithing and contained the villages or hamlets of Paganhill, Ruscombe, and Whiteshill, and part of the hamlet of Dudbridge. It was bounded on the south by the Frome, on the east by the Painswick stream, on part of the north-east by a tributary of the Painswick stream, and on part of the west by the lower course of the Ruscombe brook, known variously as the Cuckold's, Woosley's, or Ozel brook."

Landbanking EDM: Early Day Motion 494 was put forward by Lib Dem MP Greg Mulholland - there is little chance this will be made law but it all helps to raise the issue - David Drew MP has signed already - if you know other MPs please get them to also sign. The Ruscombe Valley has already been sold off so we can't stop that but at least we can stop it happening to other communities. See links to Ruscombe Valley Action Group for more info.

"That this House shares the concern of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) about the growth of land banking, the practice of subdividing land into small plots then marketing these plots on the basis that permission for development will be granted; agrees with the CPRE that this practice is having serious consequences for the future of England's countryside; further recognises that investors are encouraged to invest in these land banking schemes despite the fact that in many cases no realistic possibility of planning permission being granted exists and thus stand to lose their investments; notes that Land Heritage UK, one of the country's biggest land bankers, has gone into liquidation; and supports the CPRE's campaign calling for the Government to recognise the seriousness of this problem and the need for a co-ordinated and joined up Government response, involving the Financial Services Authority, Office of Fair Trading and Department for Communities and Local Government to protect both the countryside and potential investors from this practice."

CPRE take on landbanking campaign

Blog readers will know that 2 years ago the Ruscombe valley was parcelled into house-size plots and sold to over 180 people - see some of the previous landbanking items by clicking here and scrolling down to find links.

Photo: View across to Whiteshill showing a small part of the fields sold to landbankers

The Ruscombe Valley Action Group still meets regularly and wants to ensure this doesn't happen elsewhere - members have been in correspondence with the CPRE and various other national groups. Initially it seemed few were interested in this practice, we have therefore been delighted that CPRE have taken up the campaign - before Christmas they launched a news release plus a report and accompanying articles to national press. If Australia can prevent this activity then we should be able to in this country.

Listen to You and Yours programme on landbanking here.

Here is their release:

LANDBANKERS SELLING RURAL ENGLAND BY THE POUND

Countryside campaigners CPRE [1] today (Friday) launch a campaign against a growing carve up of England’s countryside. It leaves fields and woods at risk of being disfigured and neglected. [2]

Small investors from across the globe are being sold plots of rural land on hundreds of sites across England in order to build homes on them. Their chances of success are very low and their ‘investments’ are likely to fail, because permission to develop cannot be obtained on the great majority of the land.

But that has not stopped more than two dozen separate ‘landbanking’ operations from using glossy advertising and high pressure sales techniques to lure in gullible investors. CPRE fears top economist Kate Barker’s review of planning, commissioned by HM Treasury and published last week, could pour fuel on the flames of small investor landbanking. [3] She called for a major review of Green Belt boundaries across England. Landbanking operators may use this to advertise hundreds more plots on Green Belt land for sale, claiming their protected status may soon be lost following the Barker review.

See our briefing The Great Landbanking Carve Up

CPRE is combining with MPs from all parties to call for the Government to clamp down on the schemes. Greg Mulholland, Liberal Democrat MP for Leeds North West, has today issued an Early Day Motion supporting our campaign. [4]

CPRE has found nearly 30 operators involved in buying up land in open countryside and subdividing it into small plots, sometimes with stakes and fences. They then market the plots, mostly via the Internet, as having potential for development, with inflated prices to match.

Yet they do not have the necessary authorisation they need, both from planning authorities and the Financial Services Authority, to realise the potential they refer to – and little hope of ever getting it. Many use seductive but highly questionable claims to suck in investors from all over the globe. [5]

CPRE has surveyed the activities of these companies and found some 200 separate sites across England’s countryside are affected. [6] Once subdivided and sold, the sites are at risk of being disfigured or neglected. [7]

The Government has recently proposed a small change in planning law to prevent the landbanking operators from subdividing land into small plots with unsightly fences and posts. CPRE welcomes the proposal, but on its own it will not be enough to tackle the growing problem. [8]

Much more needs to be done across Government. Councils need to be able to remove fences and stakes already in place, and Government urgently needs to use the powers it has in company and property law to curtail the landbanking operations.

Mark Prisk MP (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford) said: ‘It’s high time the Government acted. In Hertfordshire and across the UK, this landbanking is bad for our countryside and even worse for people tempted to speculate.’

Colin Challen MP (Labour, Morley and Rothwell) said: ‘The trend towards speculative landbanking needs to be arrested, and I hope that the collapse recently of a landbanking company will make people think twice about this capricious threat to our Green Belt. At a time when market pressure, as opposed to sound planning policy, appears to be the preferred post-Barker approach to housing supply, we need to carefully consider who would actually benefit. Landbanking should be discouraged – it is speculation against the countryside.’

Greg Mulholland MP said: ‘Ordinary people are being ripped off and at the same time landbanking scams are causing real distress to many local communities who are worried that important local sites, including in Green Belt land, will be built on. It is time the Government tackled this, to stop people being conned and to protect Green Belt land for future generations to enjoy.’

Paul Miner, CPRE’s Planning Campaigner, said: ‘In Australia they have clear laws to stop this practice and are using them. [9] We shouldn’t have to tolerate it here either. The Department for Communities and Local Government, the Department for Trade and Industry, the Financial Services Authority and the Office of Fair Trading need to work together and stamp it out completely.’ [10]

Landbanking company goes bust - no tears here!

One of Britain's biggest landbankers has gone bust, leaving investors who paid a total of £7m for tiny slices of farmland, wondering where their money went. Land Heritage (UK) Ltd told 700 land purchasers this week it was going into liquidation on the "advice" of accountants PricewaterhouseCoopers.

In March landbanker United Land Holdings was also shut down for the same reason. Gladwish who have divided the Ruscombe valley into over 180 house sized plots for sale is still operating. A pity in many ways as there are huge issues about how this beautiful land in AONB will be looked after in the future.


How landbanking works

Landbanking firms offer huge potential gains to investors on the premise that the plots of agricultural land they sell will gain planning permission for housing some time in the future and hence soar in value - the small print clauses usually point out that these profits are not guaranteed and in Gladwish's case are upfront about this being agricultural land. Nevertheless the way the plots are sold in house-sized bites and the literature about pushing for planning can all be persuasive to people not in the know.

According to The Guardian last week landbankers have made nothing for investors. The land sold is invariably zoned for agricultural use or is green belt. Some plots have been on flood plains or well away from road access - in Ruscombe there are some on steep slopes or over badger setts. The Guardian say that few investors ever see their sites - landbankers sell anywhere from Dubai to India, China and Australia - in Ruscombe's case we found one of the plots owned by someone in Canada.

The real gainers from landbanking are the landbankers themselves. They buy land at agricultural prices then divide each acre into 10 to 12 plots, selling each one for £10,000 and sometimes as much as £60,000. A landbank deal becomes a collective investment if the landbanker arranges planning applications or offers plots to a developer. In theory, plot owners could apply for planning permission and sell on their own. But this is difficult - no developer would want to deal with up to 300 different investors while selling land back to a farmer would fetch a few hundred pounds a site.

There'll be few tears here in Ruscombe to hear that another landbanker has gone bust. Read more about land banking in Ruscombe Valley here and the threat to Chalford near Stroud here.

Ruscombe valley being sold in India?

The Guardian reports that lots of green belt land in England are being sold to Indians for thousands of pounds as one of the best ways to make money. They are being marketed on the basis that vast tracts of the English countryside would soon be covered in homes - and potentially make big profits for foreign investors.

Is our Ruscombe Valley being marketed by Gladwish in India? Certainly the land in our three fields is still being marketed in this country and there is evidence that Gladwish have already sold to people in India.

See more re our recent walk in the valley to highlight the fact that the fields were sold 2 years ago and see more background info. This is another example of why we must get the legislation changed.

Companies have apparently taken out full-page advertisements in Indian newspapers and also blitzed prospective customers with text messages saying: "Plot available in UK London (sic)". Investing in England's green belt, according to marketing material seen by the Guardian, is "one of the best ways to create real personal wealth". Landbanking firms typically buy fields for a few thousand pounds, divide them up, and then sell plots for £10,000 each on the basis that, with planning permission, they stand to reap substantial profits. However, local councils told the Guardian that "allowing homes to be built on the land would be contrary to all current, emerging and foreseeable planning policies".

Read full Guardian article.